HELLO ! WE JUST KILLED YOUR MOTHER, COME GET HER BODY.

_Lieve_De_Troyer_3184177k

Doctor Killed Depressed Woman in Euthanasia, Didn’t Tell Family Until Next Day

 INTERNATIONAL   SPUC   NOV 13, 2017   |   2:36PM    BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of Tom Mortier, a Belgian man whose mother was euthanised without him being informed.

No chance to say goodbye

In April 2012, Godelieva De Troyer, who was 64 and in good physical health, but had a history of severe mental health problems, was killed by lethal injection by Wim Distelmans, Belgium’s leading euthanasia proponent and provider. Her son Tom Mortier was only informed when “hospital officials asked him to come to the morgue to fill out the paperwork necessary for turning over his mother’s remains to the department of experimental anatomy, per her request.”
“I have a trauma now,” Mortier told Sohrab Ahmari of Commentary Magazine. “There is no care for me! Nothing! It all has to go here,” tapping his heart. According to the article, “his mother’s death transformed the chemistry professor from a mild supporter of Belgium’s ultra-liberal euthanasia law into its most outspoken opponent.  “Going to a hospital and getting an injection isn’t much different from someone jumping in front of a train,” he said. “Is this humane? I don’t think this is humane.”

Lethal corruption

Mr Mortier has tried to initiate criminal proceedings in Belgium, but local prosecutors dismissed his complaint against Distelmans, citing a “lack of evidence.” Prof Distelmans, who has also authorised a number of other controversial euthanasia cases, such as that of 45 year old deaf twins, and a 44 year old whose sex change operation had failed, is co-Chairman of the Federal Control and Evaluation Committee that monitors euthanasia cases since its inception.
ADF have cited this glaring conflict of interest in their application to the ECHR. They also argue that Belgium have violated articles 2 and 8 of the Convention of Human Rights, the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life. In particular, they point out that Mrs de Troyer was able to dispense with her treating physician of more than twenty years and consult different psychiatrists until she found one willing to authorise euthanasia. Moreover, the doctor who carried out the euthanasia did so after she had donated 2500 euros to his organisation.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
As Mr Mortier says, “The big problem in our society is that apparently we have lost the meaning of taking care of each other.”

Do we want this in the UK?

Meanwhile, Dignity in Dying have released a report bewailing the fact that only a quarter of British people can afford to “outsource” their death to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. Commenting on the report, Dr Peter Saunders of the Care Not Killing Alliance said: “This is not new research but an attempt by a campaign group Dignity in Dying – the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society – to boost a flagging campaign that has consistently failed to achieve any legal change over the last twelve years. They have essentially carried out a survey of their own supporters and cherry-picked the most extreme quotes in the desperate hope of capturing a few headlines.”
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THE GOOD NEWS: BISHOP NAUMANN WAS ELECTED !!! THE BAD NEWS: 82 BISHOPS ACTUALLY VOTED FOR CARDINAL CUPICH WHO IS NOT KNOWN TO BE PRO-LIFE. 82 BISHOPS ??????????

Featured Image
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews
Claire ChretienClaire ChretienFollow Claire

NEWS,

BREAKING: Pro-life bishop beats ultra-liberal Cdl. Cupich to head US bishops’ pro-life office

BALTIMORE, Maryland, November 14, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Strongly pro-life Archbishop Joseph Naumann, Archbishop of Kansas City, Kansas, beat extremely liberal Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, to be the next head of the U.S. bishops’ pro-life efforts this morning.

Naumann won the race to be Chairman of U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities. He won 54 percent of the election with 96 bishops supporting him. Cupich won 46 percent of the vote with 82 bishops supporting him.

The contest between Cupich and Naumann presented the U.S. bishops with an opportunity to define their vision for pro-life activism.

The vote was also a “barometer of support for Pope Francis among the American hierarchy,” the Wall Street Journal astutely noted. Cupich and Naumann “represent the ideological poles of the U.S. church and have articulated different visions of what being pro-life should mean.”

Cupich is widely known as one of the most left-wing prelates in the U.S. Catholic Church. Pope Francis appointed him to the prominent position of Archbishop of Chicago. Pope Francis made Cupich a cardinal in 2016. The pontiff also has given Cupich a key role in picking new U.S. bishops.

In May 2017, at Naumann’s direction, the Archdiocese of Kansas City began to cut ties with the Girl Scouts over their promotion of abortion and transgenderism.

“Our greatest responsibility as a Church is to the children and young people in our care,” said Naumann. “It is essential that all youth programs at our parishes affirm virtues and values consistent with our Catholic faith.”

“Girl Scouts USA … are no longer a compatible partner in helping us form young women with the virtues and values of the Gospel,” he said. He told parishes to instead start troops of American Heritage Girls, an alternative to the Girl Scouts that doesn’t promote abortion.

During the 2016 presidential election, Naumann skewered pro-abortion Catholic Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s running mate, for being an “orthodox” Democrat but a “cafeteria Catholic.”

In his critique of Kaine, Naumann touched on many of the problems with being “personally” against abortion but publicly voting for and favoring pro-abortion policies.

“Why is Senator Kaine personally opposed to abortion if he does not believe that it is the taking of an innocent human life?” Naumann asked.

Cupich has risen to power during the current pontificate. Before then, he was known as the bishop who asked priests and seminarians not to pray outside abortion centersand who locked Catholics out of their parish during the Easter Triduum to prevent them from holding Traditional Latin Masses. The parish was forced to conduct its Good Friday liturgy on the sidewalk.

Cupich has resurrected many of the “seamless garment” arguments of former Chicago Archbishop Joseph Bernardin equating intrinsic evils like abortion with social ills like poverty. Left-wing Bernardin was the archbishop of Chicago from 1982 to 1996.

After equating abortion with non-moral issues, Bernardin and Cupich seemingly then ignore abortion and direct attacks on human life to push for liberal political causes.

In August 2015, in the wake of the Center for Medical Progress videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts trafficking scandal, Cupich wrote that unemployment and hunger are just as appalling as the killing of millions of children in the womb and the damages that many of their mothers have experienced.

When the governor of Illinois promised to veto a law mandating taxpayer-funded abortion (he later broke this promise), Cupich thanked him “for this principled stand.”

“Abortion is a controversial issue in this country, but using public money to provide abortions should not be,” he said.

“I pray that this divisive issue will be put behind us and our government officials will now concentrate on the many difficult challenges facing Illinois,” Cupich continued. “Most importantly, our political leaders must find a way to cooperate and craft a budget that serves all our people.”

Cupich’s statement implied that abortion is wrong because it’s a “divisive” issue and that taxpayer-funded abortions are wrong because most Americans oppose them.

Cupich’s statements in support of gun control and immigration have much more strongly-worded.

On Monday, Cupich lamented “the poisoning rhetoric that many times is degrading of immigrants and even demonizing of them.”

There’s something wrong in our churches when people leave Mass with that “rhetoric” still “echoing” in them, Cupich said. This shows the necessity of “a call to conversion of our people.”

Cupich has called Jesuit Father James Martin a “foremost evangelizer” of youth. Martin is one of the most vocal pro-gay priests in the Church. He says same-sex couples should be able to kiss during Mass, that opposing same-sex “marriage” is akin to racism, and that same-sex attracted priests should “come out.”

“Priests for Life congratulates Archbishop Joseph Naumann on his election to be the next Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Pro-life Activities,” Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, told LifeSiteNews.

“We have known and interacted with him for nearly 25 years, since he was Director of the Archdiocesan Pro-life Committee in Saint Louis, and he has always been an encouragement to our efforts,” said Pavone. “We look forward to working with him and the other bishops who serve the committee, as well as  the staff of the Secretariat for Pro-life Activities, headed by Tom Grenchik.”

Naumann has spoken out against pornography and created resources for those hurt by addiction and exposure to it.

“We fail our people if we’re not courageous in preaching about chastity, as well as offering opportunities to help those seeking to live chastely,” Naumann said in 2011. “When we live chaste lives, we are witnesses of our faith in the world. Chastity also frees us from those things that can enslave us and leave us feeling isolated and sad.”

“Pro-life people around the country need to understand that the bishops’ pro-life committee is not meant to do the work that all the rest of us are entrusted with doing,” said Pavone. “It is a resource for the Bishops’ Conference. It is not an ‘approval board’ from which pro-life groups or activities have to get a stamp of approval in order to do their work. Rather, as Priests for Life has been told over the years, the bishops want to encourage all who are doing their part to advance the culture of life. And we look forward to doing the same!”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Priests, lay leaders defend Fr. Weinandy: severe backlash for his forced resignation

Supporters of Father Weinandy

 

Veritas Vincit: The Truth Shall Prevail

14 November 17

Among the priests who have used Twitter to publicly support Fr. Weinandy are (left to right): Fr. John Hunwicke, Fr. Thomas Berg, Fr. Pius Pietryzyk, Fr. Thomas Petri, and Fr. Brad Sweet.

 

[ Emphasis and {commentary} in red type by Abyssum ]

Within hours after the publication of his letter to Pope Francis, Fr. Thomas Weinandy was immediately asked to resign from his post as doctrinal consultant to the United States Bishops Conference.This swift move seemingly proves the validity of one Fr. Weinandy’s complaints regarding Pope Francis’ pontificate: that many of the clergy live in a climate of fear and do not speak their mind for fear of being marginalized.

Fr. Weinandy wrote to Pope Francis:“What many have learned from your pontificate is not that you are open to criticism, but that you resent it. Many bishops are silent because they desire to be loyal to you, and so they do not express – at least publicly; privately is another matter – the concerns that your pontificate raises. Many fear that if they speak their mind, they will be marginalized or worse.”  

Fellow Clergy Show Online Support for Fr. Weinandy.

Fr. Weinandy’s resignation has prompted a huge backlash on social media, with many high-profile Catholic personalities and priests active on social media publicly supporting his cause.  Lifesite News even ran an online petition campaign to support Fr. Weinandy – in just a few days, the petition campaign has gathered 3,418 signatures (as of this writing).

The renowned Oxford scholar, Fr. John Hunwicke has this to say on Fr. Weinandy’s dismissal: “This cheap and vulgar ritual humiliation exemplifies the extent to which PF [Pope Francis] is presiding over a bully-boy Church in which midget bishops and minicardinals compete to defeat each other in the sycophancy stakes.”

Just as Tom Weinandy has, in effect, just said. Fr. Thomas Berg, moral theologian, Vice Rector & Director of Admissions-St. Joseph’s Seminary (Dunwoodie), said on Twitter: “I’ve collaborated on several occasions w/ Fr. Tom Weinandy. An exceedingly prudent theologian who loves the Church.”

Fr. Pius Pietryzyk, OP, a Dominican Friar and Canon Lawyer, said: “I had Fr. Weinandy as a theology professor. One of the kindest, most level-headed people I know. This is quite something coming from him.”

Fr. Thomas Petri, OP, a moral theologian with a doctorate in Sacred Theology (S.T.D.), agreed with one of Fr. Weinandy’s key points, saying on Twitter: “Anyone who expresses concern is lambasted as rigid.” 

Fr. Brad Sweet, said: “Praying for  Fr Thomas Weinandy today who dared to criticise Amoris Laetitia, wrote to Pope + got fired. The loving + merciful face of USCCB.”

Damian Thompson, editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald, said: “All over the world, bishops and priests are reading the Weinandy letter and thinking: I wish I didn’t agree with this, but I do.”

Double Standards?Many are contrasting the U.S. Bishops’ heavy-handed handling of Fr. Weinandy with how they have handled an individual who is still employed by the Bishops of the U.S., despite the fact that she openly proclaimed her allegiance on social media with the notorious abortion group Planned Parenthood.

Father Weinandy

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IRISH PRIESTS ARE CALLED UPON TO BE NICE TO THEIR BISHOPS

Stop calling bishops ‘spineless nerds and sycophantic half-wits’, Irish priests told

The Association of Catholic Priests heard that most bishops were ‘not all as bad as painted by your leadership’

Irish priests should stop calling their bishops “spineless nerds and sycophantic half-wits”, a former abbot has said.

Dom Mark Patrick Hederman, retired Abbot of Glenstal, told a meeting of the Association of Catholic Priests (ACP) that most bishops were “not all as bad as painted by your leadership” and accused them of taking the wrong approach if they want to bring about change.

“If the ACP is trying to change things and to galvanize the bishops of this country into positive action, then even the most junior politician and unseasoned diplomat would tell them that they are going about it the wrong way,” he said.

The ACP, which has been described as a “liberal lobby group”, strongly criticised outgoing papal nuncio Archbishop Charles Brown earlier this year, saying it was “no secret that under the last Nuncio, [Pope] Francis’ vision of an open Church was not reflected in the appointment of bishops.”

 

“During that time there has been, with one or two exceptions, a clear lack of leadership from Irish bishops, even a marked reluctance to follow the example of Pope Francis,” they added.

However, Dom Hederman said: “Calling the bishops spineless nerds and sycophantic half-wits is not going to encourage them to adopt your point of view.”

“In fact,” he added, “for the most part, many of their flock would hold that they are more pleasant, less pompous, and more approachable than others from the past”.

At the same meeting, the ACP announced it would offer group therapy sessions for priests falsely accused of sexual abuse.

“A lot of good, decent priests have been affected by the abuse carried out by other priests in the past,” said Fr Roy Donovan. “They’ve suffered shock and a sense of shame over what’s happened, and that’s partly why we’re holding a circle of healing.”

“Hopefully, those who attend will find some benefit and, if it goes well, then it’s quite likely that we’ll hold regular circles of healing around the country.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Did Saint Francis Predict Pope Francis?

Monday, November 13, 2017

Did Saint Francis Predict Pope Francis?

Written by 

Rate this item

 the REMNANT
Did Saint Francis Predict Pope Francis?

Traditionalists are often derided by neo-Catholic commentators for relying on supposedly apocryphal quotations from Popes or saints bearing on the current ecclesial crisis.  But these critics never demonstrate that the oft-cited quotations are apocryphal; they merely assert that they must be, as they seem too good to be true.  This is often done in comment boxes or responses to online queries at neo-Catholic websites, wherein the neo-Catholic commentator professes he can find no source for a given quotation—meaning he hasn’t bothered to do any serious investigation beyond a few Google searches.

Take this quotation of Pius XII, for example, speaking in 1931 when he was still Monsignor Pacelli, serving as Pius XI’s Secretary of State:

I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul….

I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.

A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted.  She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?”

When I first cited this quotation some 17 years ago, I was contacted by a very prominent neo-Catholic luminary who demanded a source for it, because he and his friends believed it was “apocryphal.”  I did not receive the courtesy of a thank-you when I pointed him to pp. 52-53 of Msgr. Roche’s biography of Pius XII, Pie XII Devant L’Histoire (Paris: Editions Robert Laffont, 1972), an out-of-print French-language work I managed to obtain after an extensive search of used book seller inventory.  The French original text confirms the accuracy of the English translation I had seen before I cited the statement.

A Modernist apostate priest, one Emile Poulet, who left the priesthood and married, attempted to cast doubt on the credibility of Msgr. Roche’s account of the words of the future Pius XII. Small wonder: Poulet, who died in 2014 at the age of 94, belonged to the “worker-priest” movement that none other than Pius XII had condemned, as I note here.  His attempt to debunk the quotation involved nit-picking about what he claimed were factual errors elsewhere in the Roche biography.  But he had no evidence that the quotation as such was a fabrication.  He simply wished that it was so.

Let’s give our neo-Catholic friends another “apocryphal” quotation to dismiss out of hand.  This one pertains to an astonishing prophecy by Saint Francis of Assisi about a future occupant of the Chair of Peter:

A short time before the holy Father’s [St. Francis’] death, he called together his children and warned them of the coming troubles:

“Act bravely, my brethren; take courage and trust in the Lord.  The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase. The devils will have unusual power; the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who obey the Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal ears and perfect charity.

“At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.

“There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God….

Those who persevere in their fervor and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth…

“Some preachers will keep silent about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them, not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.”  [paragraph breaks added]

This quotation appears in Works of the Seraphic Father, St. Francis of Assisi, published in 1882 by the London-based Catholic publishing house R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250).  It is readily available as a Google book.  The same book, it must be noted, contains an appendix setting forth “Doubtful Works of Saint Francis,” of which the quotation is not part.  Thus, the publisher itself carefully distinguished the authentic prophecies of Saint Francis from what might be apocryphal. Moreover, in 1882 there could hardly have been any “radical traditionalist” motive to circulate phony quotations of the saint.

St. Francis in ecstacy“St. Francis in Ecstacy”, Caravaggio, 1595

Saint Francis’ prophecy is clearly not a prediction of the Great Western Schism (1378-1417), which did not involve a “destroyer” on the Chair of Peter who leads the faithful into error, widespread apostasy, and the persecution of faithful Catholics as “schismatics.”  But it does contain elements very familiar to us today.  And what inference might one draw from the coincidence that Saint Francis’ prophecy of a future “destroyer” in the papal office seems to correspond rather well with the pontificate of the only Pope who has taken Francis’ name as his own?

Something else to consider:  Saint Francis, one of the greatest saints in Church history, one of the few who is known and revered by the whole world, freely revealed his vision of an ecclesial destroyer who usurps the papal office.  That is, Saint Francis did not suffer from the currently reigning papolatry, which holds that the indefectibility of the Church depends upon defending every word and deed of a given Pope as somehow consistent with Tradition and declares absolutely inadmissible the idea that the holder of the Petrine office could be a threat to the integrity of the Faith. Rather, Saint Francis, illuminated by heaven itself, recognized the coming reality of what Saint Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, hypothesized as possible in principle, to cite another “apocryphal” quotation:

Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist by not doing what he orders and by preventing his will from being executed…

De Controversiis on the Roman Pontiff, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press: 2015), Book II, Chapter 29, p. 303.

Did Saint Francis predict the coming of Pope Francis?  That is not for us to judge, although the Church may­ well issue a judgment of Francis like that of the posthumous anathema of Honorius­­ I. Would Saint Francis have been horrified by the words and deeds of the Pope who has presumed to take his name?  That question answers itself.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

PROGRESSION OR REGRESSION ???

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister

Bergoglio’s Revolution. In Little Doses, But Irreversible

Papa

 

*

On the world stage, Pope Francis’s star is burning brighter than ever, now even as nuclear peacemaker between the United States and North Korea. But even within the Church he finds himself at grips with a piecemeal world war, a strange war that he himself has contributed to unleashing, absolutely convinced that it will come to a good end.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is unquestionably an innovator. But in method, before it can be seen in results.

He always introduces the innovations in little doses, on the sly, perhaps in an allusive footnote, as he did with the now-famous footnote 351 of the postsynodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” only to say later with candor, when questioned on one of his equally famous airborne press conferences, that he doesn’t even remember that footnote.

And yet those few cryptic lines were enough to ignite within the Church an unprecedented conflict, with entire episcopates squaring off, in Germany in favor of the innovations and in Poland against, and so all over the world between diocese and diocese, between parish and parish, where what is at stake is not only the yes or no to communion for the divorced and remarried, but the end of the indissolubility of marriage and the admission of divorce within the Catholic Church too, as is already taking place among Protestants and Orthodox.

There are those who are becoming alarmed over this confusion that pervades the Church. But Francis is doing nothing to put the house back into order. He is moving right along with confidence. No point in even waving to the cardinals who submit their own “doubts” and those of many to him, on capital questions of doctrine that they see under threat, and ask him to bring clarity. He lets run free the most disparate interpretations, whether conservative or progressive in the extreme, without ever explicitly condemning any of them.

The important thing for him is “to cast the seed so that the power may be unleashed,” it is “to mix the leaven so that the power may bring growth,” words from a homily of his a few days ago at Santa Marta. And “if I get my hands dirty, thanks be to God! Because woe to those who preach under the illusion of not getting their hands dirty. These are museum curators.”

Pascal, the philosopher and man of faith whom Francis says he wants to beatify, wrote fiery words against the Jesuits of his time, who threw into the fray their most daring ideas, so that over time they would ripen little by little and become the common opinion.

But this is precisely what the first Jesuit pope in history is doing today: setting into motion “processes” within which he is sowing the innovations that he wants to win out sooner or later, in the most diverse fields, as for example in the judgment on Protestantism.

In Argentina, Bergoglio unleashed terrible invectives against Luther and Calvin. But as pope he is doing the complete opposite, he does nothing but sing Luther’s praises. On a visit to the Lutheran church in Rome, when asked to say whether Catholics and Protestants may receive communion together in spite of the fact that the former believe that the bread and wine “really” become the body and blood of Christ while the latter do not, he answered yes, and then no, and then I don’t know, and then figure it out yourselves, in an ecstasy of contradictions, but in practice giving the go-ahead.

It is the fluidity of his magisterium that is the true novelty of Francis’s pontificate. What he does not tolerate is that anyone should dare to tie it down in clear and distinct ideas, purging it of its innovative contents.

Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, who as prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith insisted on saying that in “Amoris Laetitia” there was nothing new with respect to tradition, he summarily removed from office.

And Cardinal Robert Sarah, who as prefect of the congregation for divine worship would like to reserve for himself full control of the translations of the Latin missal in the various languages, he publicly humiliated, requiring him to tell all the bishops himself that the pope instead is giving every national Church the freedom to translate as it likes, the embryo of a future Catholic Church no longer monolithic but federated, another of the objectives of Bergoglio, the unrelenting schemer.

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

———-

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Former Alabama Chief Justice Moore emphatically described the Washington Post story as a “completely false and desperate political attack” and “the very definition of fake news.”

notre_dame_paris

Judge Moore is scourged at the Post

by ALAN KEYES on NOVEMBER 10, 2017
…the issue is not what words these candidates deploy… the issue is whether common sense and reason permit us to trust them. (It’s a Matter of Trust))
So how can we know that a tree is bad; by judging its fruit in light of God’s word, rather than relying on information derived exclusively derived from our own faculties. Using Obama as an example, one of his fruits appears to be making sure that abortion and infanticide are sanctioned as right and lawful. God’s will for us condemns the taking of innocent life. Obama’s fruit is contrary to God’s will. (How to tell a bad tree)
Because of a story in the Washington Post, allegations of sexual misconduct with an underage teenage girl have been deployed to defame the character of Roy Moore in the special election for the United States Senate seat in Alabama.
54-year-old Leigh Corman alleges that, when she was 14, Moore, who was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney at the time, took her to his home and made sexual advances, short of sexual intercourse.
In a statement issued by his campaign, former Alabama Chief Justice Moore emphatically described the report as a “completely false and desperate political attack” and “the very definition of fake news.
The report also says that “three other women interviewed by the Washington Post in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18, when he was in his early 30s…. None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.”
The Washington Post is well known for its bias against public figures like Judge Moore, who bear unwavering witness to God’s authority over just human governments and politics. Therefore, it makes sense to think through the possibility that the content and timing of the WP story have been engineered to demoralize and intimidate Christian voters, whose goodwill makes them the solid core of Judge Moore’s political supporters.
Perhaps it is simply a coincidence that, in recent weeks we have seen a cascading torrent of reports about the culture of coercive, exploitative pedophilia and sexual harassment in the entertainment industry. This cascade has generated a corresponding wave of passionate moral indignation. The Post’s story is, as it were, a turbine, engineered to capture, direct and focus that indignation into a force capable of disrupting the very foundation of Judge Moore’s US Senate campaign.
Only one charge against Judge Moore involves criminal behavior. When made pursuant to law, any conclusion about the truth of the charge is subject to due process of law, which includes the presumption of innocence. Of course, allegations published during a political campaign, and tried in the court of public opinion are, de facto subject to no such constraint.
Election is an exercise of sovereign power, in which the voters end up being judge, jury and executioner, at least insofar as the outcome of the election is concerned.
Given the time and circumstances of an election campaign, the presumption of innocence would require judgment against the plaintiff, since no proper trial can take place. But if that presumption is denied, the burden of proof shifts to the accused, who may therefore be required to prove a negative, not just once but in respect of a multitude of accusations. Furthermore, the judge cannot be impartial, nor the jury strictly charged to judge according to the evidence and the law, not when the whole framework of the election is predicated on partisan division. This would require unbiased partisanship, and partisan objectivity— which is plainly oxymoronic.
Due process exists so that criminal accusations can be justly tried. But politically damaging allegations made in the heat of political battle make due process impossible. Moreover, when exercising their sovereign power to choose governmental officials, it is not just for voters to take no account of the public interest, the common good, since the sovereign is, above all, accountable to serve and preserve them both.
With all this in mind, what should a conscientious voter do? In the limited time available, between the publication of a charge and Election Day; and given an environment inevitably charged with partisan bias, that extends to the voters themselves, no judgment “beyond a reasonable doubt” is likely, nor even one based on the preponderance of the evidence.
In cases of allegations of sexual misconduct, much of that evidence usually consists of conflicting witness testimony. Like the political decision involved in the election, the evaluation of evidence comes down to the simple question “Who do who trust?”
There was a time when a public figure who was well and favorably known to the people, would be more trusted on that account. But in recent years, confessed sexual misconduct from people in that position—including elected officials as high as the President; actors and actresses held in great affection; as well as spiritual and religious figures implicitly trusted for their wisdom and good faith—have all disappointed people who presumed to trust in them.
Does this growing distrust mean that voters will reflexively back away from anyone accused of misconduct during an election? If so, instead of a government of, by and for the people we will have government by calumny, which is to say, by lies brazenly asserted and widely dispersed. Such a government favors the rule of the elitist few, who usually wield superior power over the means of public communication; and the resources need to purchase the props and testimony required to make and widely disseminate allegations that seem plausible enough to stampede voters in the late stages of an election.
The Washington Post’s story has the air of just such a stampeding ploy. The core allegation of criminal behavior is plausible enough, though it never escapes the “he said, she said” dilemma of conflicting testimony about allegedly intimate activities, viewed through the lens of decades of time, and possibly suspect present motives.
The one plausibly criminal charge is set is in a frame of supposedly corroborating testimony, none of which involves any actual crime. Even their impropriety is a matter of widely variably subjective judgments, since not sexual contact is alleged, only old-fashioned romantic interest.
It’s doubtful that any of these allegations have much—if any—evidentiary weight. One concludes that the elitist faction powers-that-be are depending on a prejudiced environment, and the skillful arrangement of facts that don’t even involve misconduct, to carry the day against Roy Moore at the polls. But Christian voters are admonished by Christ not to judge matters of character simply by words, however skillfully manipulated. Nor even by deeds, however plausibly portrayed. We are to judge by fruits, good or bad.
By this measure, Roy Moore’s life hangs heavy with good fruit of his sacrificial witness to God’s authority, and its consequences for human justice and rights, including liberty. Christ was condemned by the testimony of false witnesses to hang upon a cross intended for shame. But that calumny itself served to reveal the evidence of God’s power in Him, for truth
Roy Moore’s life gives just such evidence as Christ requires of faith bearing fruit, in sacrificially enacted testimony, which has brought increase to the harvest of God. Judge Moore’s consistent witness thus impels me to trust that he was good seed, even in his youth. In any case, encroaching thorns did not choke off the promise of that youth, which, it seems, was evident to the Lord he even then professed to serve.
So, if I lived in Alabama, I would cast my vote for Roy Moore, trusting more in God’s witness than that of the Washington Post. I would do so with absolute confidence that He means to finish what, the work of his Kingdom in Moore’s life.
**************************************************************************************

The Rat In Alabama
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on November 10, 2017

How convenient for Democrats that the allegations against Roy Moore in his Alabama Senate race surfaced after the Republican primary and after the deadline had passed to put a new candidate on the ballot.  The 48-year-old charges come from a woman with three divorces and three bankruptcies.  And only after Moore has run for governor and been elected twice to be Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

I smell a rat.

**************************************************************************************

 

Moore DENIES Knowing Woman Who Accused Him Of Sexual Molestation: ‘It Never Happened’

Photo by Robert Daemmrich Photography Inc/Corbis via Getty Images

On Friday, Sean Hannity hosted Senate Republican candidate Roy Moore on his national radio show, where Hannity grilled him on allegations that he molested a 14-year-old girl when he was 32 and dated multiple teenagers during that period. Moore flatly denied knowing the 14-year-old girl, and suggested that he didn’t remember having dated teenagers at that age.

“These allegations are completely false and misleading,” Moore said. “But more than anything it hurts me personally because you know I’m a father, I have one daughter, I have five granddaughters, and I have a special concern for the protections of young ladies. This is really hard to get on radio and explain this. These allegations are just completely false.”

With regard to Leigh Corfman, Moore denied knowing her. “I don’t know Ms. Corfman from anybody, I never talked to her, I never had any contact with her. Allegations of sexual misconduct with her are completely false, I believe they’re politically motivated. I believe they were brought only to stop a very successful campaign. And that’s what they’re doing. I’ve never known this woman or anything. With regard to the other girls, you understand this is 40 years ago, after my return from the military, I dated a lot of young ladies.”

Moore admitted knowing two of the young women quoted in The Washington Post story. He said he didn’t remember a relationship with one of the women, Debbie Wesson Gibson, but said he knew her parents. “I don’t remember specific dates,” Moore said. “I know her, but I don’t remember going out on dates.”

Moore also flatly denied having provided alcohol to a minor, as alleged by one of the women. “That’d be against the law, against anything I would have ever done, I seem to remember her as a good girl, I had some sort of knowledge of her parents, her mother in particular,” Moore stated.

Hannity asked if Moore dated a woman as young as 17. “Not generally, no…I don’t remember anything like that. … I don’t remember dating any girl without the permission of her mother, and in her statement, she said her mother actually encouraged her to go out with me.”

Hannity then returned to the Corfman allegations. “Those are specific charges she’s making,” Hannity said. “And obviously it’s about a month away from this election campaign. Is it your position that none of that ever happened?” Moore replied, “It never happened, and I don’t even like hearing it because it never happened, and they’re doing this a month away, four weeks, after 40 years in public service. I’ve run five statewide campaigns … this has never been brought up, it’s never been even mentioned, and all of a sudden four weeks out, they’re bringing it up.” He called the allegations “a direct attack on this campaign … I would have never have any contact [with the 14-year-old]. … In fact, her allegations contradict the whole behavior pattern that two of the young ladies even witnessed theirself.” Moore continued, “These two young girls said their mothers even encouraged them to be friends with me. And, you know, that’s what they said. I wasn’t privy to their conversations, but obviously, we never had any sexual activity, there was never anything like that.”

**************************************************************************************

 

Claim: Woman Says She Was Offered Big Money to Accuse Roy Moore of Misconduct

Print

As allegations that Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore had sexual contact with an underage girl almost 40 years ago roil the nationally watched race, other reports have surfaced that are taking the whole story into even more bizarre directions.

On Thursday, The Washington Post reported allegations about an incident that allegedly took place in 1979 between then 32-year-old Moore and a 14-year-old girl.

Now, a Twitter user identified as Doug Lewis, whose Twitter profile portrays him as a supporter of President Donald Trump and a Navy veteran, posted on the social media site that a family friend had contacted him regarding the situation.

The unidentified woman reportedly told Lewis that a Washington Post reporter — identified only as “Beth” — had offered her a substantial sum of money to accuse the GOP candidate of wrongdoing.

“A family friend who lives in Alabama just told my wife that a WAPO reporter named Beth offered her 1000$ to accuse Roy Moore,” Lewis tweeted.

In subsequent tweets, Lewis further reported that the friend had pictures of the journalist who contacted her and had even recorded the conversation on her phone.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

THERE IS A RAT LOOSE IN ALABAMA

notre_dame_paris

 

The Rat In Alabama
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on November 10, 2017

How convenient for Democrats that the allegations against Roy Moore in his Alabama Senate race surfaced after the Republican primary and after the deadline had passed to put a new candidate on the ballot.  The 48-year-old charges come from a woman with three divorces and three bankruptcies.  And only after Moore has run for governor and been elected twice to be Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

I smell a rat.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

IF SAINT PETER COULD DEFEAT ATTILA THE HUN, THERE IS HOPE THAT HE CAN SAVE ROME FROM THE 21ST CENTURY HUNS WHO NOW OCCUPY IT

09 November 2017

Pope St. Leo and Attila the Hun

Pope St. Leo reigned twenty-one years as pope in the 5th century, and is the first pope to be titled “the Great.” He truly was a great Pope, defending the Faith, and confirming the primacy of the Successors of St. Peter. But perhaps the most exciting thing Pope Leo did was when he had a confrontation with the infamous and cruel military leader, Attila the Hun. This is the story.

The Huns were a nomadic people, originating probably in Mongolia, but they migrated westward, sacking and pillaging whatever cities or towns that were in their way. Until the time of Attila in the 5th century, the Huns were comprised of a loose confederation of tribes, not really a unified people at all – that is, until Attila came on the scene. He unified them, and they were making their sweep across Europe. By the time of Pope Leo, Attila the Hun was busy ransacking most of Italy, and his plan included the sack of Rome. Attila hoped to add it to his possessions, not only for the riches it would give him, but he was also trying add to his number of wives, and the young woman he had his eye on would be impressed with his taking Rome, or so he thought.

Pope Leo, of course, wanted to protect Rome and keep its citizens alive, but here was Attila, looking to attack and plunder the city, and destroy the Church. With the approach of Attila and his mob of soldiers, Pope Leo went into prayer, committing his papacy to the patronage and protection of St. Peter, the apostle and first pope, and then Leo did a very brave thing – he arranged a meeting with Attila just outside the city of Rome. Nobody thought this was a very good idea – in fact, everyone in Rome was sure that Pope Leo would be immediately martyred by this conqueror who never hesitated to murder and destroy anything or anyone who got in his way.

Nonetheless, Pope Leo went to meet Attila. And then, one of the most dramatic moments in Christian history takes place: Attila calls off the sack of Rome. And Leo goes safely back to Rome. What happened? What made Attila retreat?

This is the account of that meeting: while Attila and Leo were conversing, Attila was shaking in his boots, because that during that conversation, Attila saw a vision like he had never seen before! Attila saw St. Peter himself hovering over Leo’s head . . . with a huge sword drawn and pointed directly at him! Attilla was certain he would be immediately killed if he didn’t withdraw and leave the area, so to save his own skin, Attila ran away from the Pope, who was armed only with the Truth.

And that is the story of how Pope Leo the Great saved Rome from being destroyed.

O Lord Jesu Christ, who didst strengthen thy holy Bishop and Doctor, Pope Leo, to maintain both by word and deed the verity of thy sacred Humanity: grant, we beseech thee; that guided by the light of his doctrine, we may earnestly defend the faith of thy holy Incarnation; who livest and reignest with the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

  [Go to this link to read my daily Facebook posts.]

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

MARTIN LUTHER ‘CANONIZED’ BY THE ISSUANCE OF A BLASPHEMOUS VATICAN POSTAGE STAMP SHOWING LUTHER AND MELANCTHOM AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS IN PLACE OF THE MOTHER OF JESUS AND SAINT JOHN

Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
November 8, 2017
De Mattei: Pope Francis and his “Lutheran turning point”
On October 31st 2016, Pope Francis inaugurated the year of Luther by meeting with representatives of Lutheranism from all over the world in the Swedish Cathedral of Lund. Since then, meetings and “ecumenical” celebrations ad abundantiam have followed one after the other in the Catholic Church.

A year exactly from that date, the “”Lutheran turning point “was sealed by a symbolic act the gravity of which very few have noticed. The Vatican Post Office issued a stamp which celebrates the birth of Protestantism on October 31st 1517, the date Luther hung his 95 theses on the door of Wittenberg Cathedral.

V Centenary of the Protestant Reformationcan be read at the top of the stamp, presented on October 31st of this year by the Vatican Philatelic Office. The official communiqué describes the stamp: It depicts Jesus Crucified in the foreground on a gold, timeless background showing Wittenberg city. In an attitude of penance, on their knees respectively on the left and the right of the the Cross, Martin Luther holds a Bible, source and point of his doctrine, while Philip Melanchthon, theologian and a friend of Martin Luther’s, one of the most important protagonists of the Reformation, holds in his hand the Augsburg Confession,Confessio Augustuana, the first official exposition of the principles of Protestantism drawn up by him.”

The substitution of Our Lady and St. John at the foot of the Cross with the  two heresiarchs, Luther and Melanchthon is a blasphemous offense that no Catholic cardinal or bishop has, to date, openly condemned. The significance of this image is explained by the joint declaration of the World Lutheran Federation and the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, published the same day as the stamp. The note refers to the positive outcome of the dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans, endorsing the “new understanding of those XVI century events which lead to our separation” and affirms how both sides are “very grateful for the theological and spiritual gifts received through the Reformation“.

As if that weren’t enough, around the same time, La Civiltà Cattolica, the Pope’s “unofficial” voice, celebrated Luther  with  an article by Father Giancarlo Pani (Martin Luther, Five Hundred Years Later, inLa Civiltà Cattolica , of October 21st – November 4th 2017, pp. 119-130)

Father Pani is the same priest who said in 2014 that the Fathers of the Council of Trent had admitted the possibility of divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery, according to the custom established in the schismatic Greek Church. Now he is sustaining that Martin Luther was in no way a heretic, but an authentic “reformer”. In fact, “ the theses of Wittenberg are not a challenge, nor a rebellion against authority, but the proposal to renew the proclamation of the Gospel, in the sincere desire for a “reform” in the Church”. (p.128). Despite the claim ” by the Church of Rome and Luther of incarnating the truth in toto and being dispensers of it ” “ the role Luther had as a witness to the faith cannot be denied: He is “the reformer”;  he was able to initiate a process of “reform”  where the results of it have also benefited the Catholic Church.”

If this is the case then he has been unjustly persecuted and defamed by the Catholic Church for 500 years. The time has come to rehabilitate him.  And in order to rehabilitate him we cannot limit ourselves to presenting only his prophetic side, but must make the Church accept and put into practice his demands of reform. And the Post-Synod Exhortation Amoris Laetitia represents a decisive stage on this path. They are not wrong then the authors of the Correctio filialis (to Pope Francis) when they underlined “the affinity between Luther’s ideas on the law, justification and matrimony and those taught  or favored by Pope Francis in Amoris laetitia and elsewhere.

At this point it should be remembered that Pope Francis, like Father Pani, belongs to the Company of Jesus, whose Founder, St. Ignatius of Loyola, was the champion of the Faith that Divine Providence raised up in the XVI century against Lutheranism. In Germany, apostles like St. Peter Canisio and Blessed Peter Fabro, fought every inch of the way against the heretics and on the terrain of anti-Protestant controversy no-one can surpass St. Robert Bellarmino.

La Civiltà Cattolica was founded in 1850, with the support of Pius IX, and had a role of doctrinal defense against the errors of the time for a very long time. From its very first edition, on April 6th 1850, it dedicated an extensive anonymous essay (by Father Matteo Liberatore) on The Political Rationalism of the Italian Revolution, in which he saw Protestantism as the cause of all modern errors. These theses were developed, among others, by two famous Jesuit theologians: Fathers Giovanni Perrone (Protestantism and the Rule of the Faith, La Civiltà Cattolica, Rome 1853, 2 voll.), and Hartmann Grisar (Luther, Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1911/1912, 3 voll.).

But the commemoration of the Lutheran revolt made by the Jesuit journal in October 1917, the fourth centenary marking the 95 theses in Wittenberg, takes on a special meaning.(Luther and Lutheranism, inLa Civiltà Cattolica, IV (1917), pp. 207-233; 421-430). The theologian of La Civiltà Cattolicaexplained that “The essence of the Lutheran spirit, or rather Lutheranism, is rebellion in all of its extension and in all the force of its word. Rebellion, therefore, which is personified in Luther, was varied and profound, complex and very vast; which apparently appeared but was in fact violent, angry, trivial, obscene and diabolic; deep down it was studied, and directed according to the circumstances, focused on opportunistic ends and interests, intended and wanted withmeasured, resolute determination.” (pp.208-309).

Luther, La Civiltà Cattolica continues, “initiated that contemptible parody, with which the rebel monk attributed to God, his ideas, blasphemies and the abominations of his perverted mind: he outraged the Pope in an unspeakable way in the name of Christ, he cursed Caesar in the name of Christ, he blasphemed against the Church, against bishops, against monks with absolute infernal impetuosity, in the name of Christ; he threw his religious habit onto the tree of Judas, in the name of Christ and in the name of Christ he was married sacrilegiously” (p.209). “With the very convenient pretext of following Scripture, as that which alone contains the word of God, he conducted a war on scholastic theology, tradition, canon law, all the institutions and precepts of the Church and councils: in place of these august and venerated things, he, Martin Luther, perjured monk and self-proclaimed doctor, put himself and his authority! Popes, doctors and Holy Fathers were no longer of any worth; the word of Marin Luther was worth more than all of them!  (p.212). The Lutheran theory of justification, in the end, “was born of Luther’s imagination, not by the Gospel or any other word of God revealed to the writers of the New Testament: for us, every Lutheran novelty finds its origins in the concupiscence he stimulated, and in his development of the falsification of Scripture or in formal lying” (p.214

Father Pani cannot deny that the opinion he gives of Luther is a 360 degree turnaround from the one his confreres gave in the same journal, a century ago.  In 1917,  he was censured as an apostate, a rebel, a blasphemer; today he is being praised as a reformer, a prophet, [even] holy. No Hegelian dialectic can harmonize yesterday’s judgment with today’s. Luther was either a heretic who denied some basic dogmas of Christianity, or he was a “witness to faith” who initiated  the Reformation of the Church, brought to completion by the Second Vatican Council and Pope Francis.

In short, every Catholic is called upon to choose whether to side with Pope Francis and the Jesuits of today, or be alongside the Jesuits of yesterday and the Popes of all time.

It is time for choices and to mediate precisely on St. Ignatius’ two standards (Spiritual Exercises, n. 137)* which will help us make them in these difficult times.

*Translator’s note: “It will be here how Christ calls and wants all under His standard; and Lucifer, on the contrary, under his.” (no. 137, Spiritual Exercises).

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment